By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
drinkandswim said:
zorg1000 said:

That's not a counter argument.

And read what JRPGfan said, all you are doing is spreading nonsense that has been corrected 100 times on this site. If you don't understand how specs work than dont talk about them.

Lol yeah okay the Switch is 360 gflops but running the same games at 4 times the pixels. Get real you guys have no clue.

XB360 was around ~240Gflops
Switch is ~392 Gflops (but newer architecture, so its atleast twice the power of the XB360 imo)

Also look at the ram of the systems:
XB360 = 512 MB + 10mb eDram
Switch = 4GB LPDDR4

A big thing about resolutions is ram size requirements, the Switch haveing more will allow it to do things a xb360 couldnt, and also help run higher resolutions. Theres more to a console than just how powerfull its GPU part is. Stuff like the CPU, Memory Size, Memory Bandwidth ect... all effect how things end up performing.  The PS3 actually had a slightly weaker GPU part than the xb360, but instead a more powerfull CPU (that was hard to program)... in the end some 3rd party games actually ran better on the xb360 because of this.

Yes the Switch is alot more powerfull than the old PS3 or XB360.
Its still very weak compaired to the PS4 or XB1.

 

zorg1000 said:
drinkandswim said:

Lol yeah okay the Switch is 360 gflops but running the same games at 4 times the pixels. Get real you guys have no clue.

Ummm its not? 1080p is 2.25x the pixels as 720p, not 4x. Also many Switch games arent 1080p so there goes that argument anyway.

Again, that is not how you compare power, you cannot just look at the number of flops to make a comparison, there is so much more to it than that.

^ what Zorg1000 said.
Theres more than just how many Gflops/Tflops a consoles GPU part is, to the story.

also hes right about 720p vs 1080p.
Its basically 1m pixels vs 2m pixels (just roughly) so its more like x2 than x4.

Last edited by JRPGfan - on 05 January 2019